Planned Parenthood sells body parts of dead babies for profit
08-05-2015, 04:58 AM
The problem with the abortion issue is that there isn't a logical answer to any of the questions. It is a subject that -- rightly -- touches something very deep and primal in the human condition. Religion often has something to say about it, but only because religion and the human condition have large portions of the Venn diagram in common. Every argument made in this debate is going to have a logical fallacy attached to it, be it argument from nature, appeal to emotion and so on.
I don't actually have that much of a problem with logically fallacious arguments on this particular subject, simply because, as said, logic does not afford a full answer in this instance. Indeed I think we would be in far, far worse shape as a society if this issue did become one solveable logically and coldly. (I think this is why the Planned Parenthood secret interviews chill us on some levels: because, be it the banality of evil or just professional detachment, the discussion is being had about human parts as if they were just job lots.)
Socrates demonstrated the very limits of logic with the Socratic dialectic method attributed to him by Plato: he would approach someone, ask for their definition of, say, justice, and then undercut the person's definition with examples that contravened that definition. The idea of this was not to play asshole with random Greek citizens, but simply to point out that logic and reason only carried a human being so far, that there was a category of knowledge or subjects that simply could not be evaluated by reason, or could not be evaluated by reason alone. Akin to this is that a lot of arguments on the topic come down to bullshit attempts to redefine terms, which helps nobody and which doesn't answer the question either.
Emotion, pragmatism, and morals all have a part to play in the debate, because the abortion debate touches some of the most important subjects in human existence: life, death, and what it means to be human. Fuck I, Robot for existential questions, the bent coathanger presents a far more visceral and immediate question mark to our humanity.
The violence and viscerality of both sides of the argument is significant to understand. Lefties hated it when pro-life protesters resorted to short movies like The Silent Scream in debate because it brought home to people what was being done when an abortion took place. This was a tactic those same lefties had presented when first demanding abortion by waving placards around of dead women lying in hotel rooms from failed abortions. They hated the argument not for its falsity but for the fact it brought home to people what happens in an abortion, whether or not the film was entirely accurate. This could be classed as an appeal to emotion in both cases (and replete with exaggeration in both cases), but I actually prefer to think of these arguments as pointing to reality.
One one hand, if you refuse abortions, you potentially force women to go for illegal, backyard abortions with wire coathangers and suffering. That is a hard reality. With every activity forced underground, it becomes less safe to carry out and more lucrative for the black marketeers. Unwanted children are often treated badly, too, and that is a hard reality as well.
On the other hand, when you abort a foetus, you stop a heartbeat. Often violently. With all that entails. Saying that the heartbeat is not a baby strikes me personally as sophistry: shall we next propose it is less serious to kill a child because that child had not grown up into a man? Every argument made along the lines of "It's a lump of cells" can be distilled down to an attempt to change the listener's view about what it means to be a human being, or to rationalise what is a decision to end a life. The problem being that every living organism is nothing but a lump of cells; dust ye are and to dust ye shall return, as someone once said. The argument is not so much "it's just a lump of cells" as "it's nothing but a lump of cells." That is what stings at our cores. (On a tangent, it's a statement of Epicureanism, but I digress).
It is because it's such a stinging argument that women scream so hard against it. In the screencap above you'll note the woman resorted first, and played hard, to the rationalisation that the foetus is part of her body, that she has absolute agency over it. It is a deflection from debating what a human is to debating what choices that human has. And it is resorted to immediately because it's too disturbing a question to think about deeply. I would suspect given the vehemence of the response that the woman involved has had an abortion in the past herself, and has been taught to rationalise that decision in the manner described. While that's personally repugnant to me, I can understand it.
But these are not complete answers, either: as Stephen King once had his characters say, the end of a life is never pretty. Every day across the world men stop thousands of heartbeats - those of animals that become our food, hell, we rip open and sever at the root living organisms for firewood.
The view I hold to, the one I like best, is admittedly a logically fallacious one. It is a form of argument from nature, resort to design if you will, but it's the argument that rings true most for me:
Human beings are not designed, or evolved, or adapted (take your pick) to spontaneously abort a fertilised egg -- or a foetus -- without significant physical or pharmacological intervention. Women have a biological mechanism to eject unused eggs -- which by definition are not capable of becoming human beings -- and men are capable of spewing unused sperm from their bodies so long as we've got two minutes and a convenient picture of a >= 7. But there is no biological mechanism, no muscle a woman can deliberately clench in her own body, which will trigger an abortion at will. They have that in common with pretty much every other organism on the planet. Insofar as species are teleological -- purpose-driven -- their first and fundamental purpose is to reproduce, to create offspring. Even "lower life forms" like plants do that, where entire lifeforms adapt around or are devoted to the creation, protection, and then dispersal of their seed.
Abortion -- the process of inducing a miscarriage -- goes directly against our most primal purpose as a species. Birth control devices interrupt conception, or make it impossible; abortion is intervening one step after that process has begun. Miscarriage -- the unwilled ending of a pregnancy -- is distinct, simply because it's unwilled. It is a defect in the birth process, for whatever uncontrollable reason.
I could understand completely if someone were to object to this argument on the basis that human beings kill one another fairly regularly and that this is against that primal purpose too, and we could talk for hours about how human musculature and/or brain and/or legs are built to compete, but ultimately I think the reason abortion triggers such a primal response in us is precisely because it's human beings overriding the most basic, most instinctive drive: to successfully carry a fertilised embryo to full term.
(Notice that I distinguish this drive from the act of conception itself, because they're not the same thing. I do that for good reason, because of the comparative rarity: fucking and ejaculation can happen repeatedly in one day (with good game); a kid takes 9 months to reach the point of survival outside another human's body.)
Abortion is a most unique human behaviour in that respect. And it might be noted that even buttfucking homosexuals, triggering sperm up arseholes or eating more carpet than a vacuum cleaner, are responding to the general drive to reproduce, at the level of the amydgala; sexual pleasure seems most likely to have evolved as servant to, as enabler of, procreation. Half the theory about game on this very forum is devoted to accessing that primal drive in women, albeit for fun and profit rather than bringing on kids.
I'm not saying that abortion in all cases is wrong. Abortion in cases where it's threatening the life of the mother is something that has to be seriously considered. But insofar as humanity has a sacred nature -- and I use the word 'sacred' in a very loose sense - abortion strikes me as going against that sanctity. It is not something to be handed out freely, any more than you would hand out alcohol freely to 10 year olds.
Remissas, discite, vivet.
God save us from people who mean well. -storm
![[Image: cat20typing.jpg]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2a2JTAuV5Vs/UD8I50NyFbI/AAAAAAAAFBE/IgPzEcDe_9w/s1600/cat20typing.jpg)
![[Image: grouphug.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/grouphug.gif)
![[Image: banana.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/banana.gif)
![[Image: Muhfeelz.jpg]](http://s19.postimg.org/n85u6u18j/Muhfeelz.jpg)
![[Image: lang_metropolis_moloch_2_stor.png]](https://thegreencompassguide.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/lang_metropolis_moloch_2_stor.png)